Military Review

New weapons 2018, the rifle FDM L5: the original vision of a sleeveless ammunition

47
No exhibition weapons does not do without a sample which causes a smile with its originality. The current show in Las Vegas - Shot SHOW 2018 was no exception. FD Munitions demonstrated its view on the issue of a sleeveless ammunition, showing not only a new cartridge, but also a weapon for this ammunition.


New weapons 2018, the rifle FDM L5: the original vision of a sleeveless ammunition


Immediately it is necessary to indicate that this article is not a review of weapons, since the weapon itself is stillborn. No matter how much they admire this rifle in foreign forums, it “will not take off”. Initially, the idea was to write a full-fledged article about this weapon, but the lack of any prospects for such a project discourages any desire to take this rifle seriously.

Bezgilzovy sleeve ammunition

I don’t know how for most people, but for me personally, a sleeveless ammunition is associated with a cartridge that doesn’t have a sleeve as such, or the sleeve burns during a shot. The designers of the company FD Munitions, apparently, think differently, as they propose to designate a completely different device as a cartridgeless cartridge.

The variant of ammunition proposed by the designers of the company is a metal block in which there are five chambers. Five bullets are inserted into these chambers, five weights of gunpowder are filled in there and five primers are inserted. The original decision, and most importantly, did not deceive: after all, there really is no cartridge case.



I see no advantages of such ammunition, but there are a lot of disadvantages. Here and repeatedly increased the weight of the wearable ammunition, and the overuse of metal ... "Plus" in the form of possible multiple use seems more than negative, since for this the shooter will have to carry not only unused blocks of cartridges, but also empty ones.

A really interesting and sensible idea can only be the use of an electric primer-igniter, similar in its design to traumatic cartridges for OCA series pistols.

It can be assumed that such a design of ammunition would find its place in the civilian market, since for civilian weapons all these minuses of the cartridges are not as critical as for a combat one. But here his contribution is made by weapons for these ammunition.

FDM L5 rifle design

The first thing that catches the eye when inspecting an FDM L5 rifle: its barrel is of some strange, rectangular cross section. And the reason for this is the following: the barrel of the weapon is not one, there are five of them. That is, in front of each bullet in the block is its own barrel. It is no secret that in a good rifle the most expensive part of it is the barrel, and here it is not alone. Moreover, in order for the weapon to have sufficient accuracy, all five barrels in the block must be perfectly parallel to each other. How much is this technically possible? Quite possible. How expensive is it to create durable and accurate barrels? Very expensive.



But not even the number of gun barrels raises questions. For many people, the price of a question is not at all a question if the item being purchased is of decent quality. Much more interest is the store weapons. This is the usual box magazine, attached to the left side of the receiver. This shop contains 6 blocks with five bullets in each, that is, the capacity is not fantastic. After five shots are made from one block, it is thrown to the right side, and a new one becomes in its place. It resembles this approach to the supply of weapons Japanese machine gun Nambu Type 11.



The comments often raise the question of the balance of weapons as the ammunition is spent. It is really possible to think about this pattern of weapon thought in this vein.



The only positive point in this rifle is the possibility of a volley immediately from five barrels. But why and for what purpose it will take five simultaneous shots at the same point - a mystery.



That such an interesting novelty was presented this year. Of course, this weapon can be viewed not as an end product, but as a platform for testing individual solutions and ideas that will be used in other structures. But for some reason, everything is new, but there are no new, interesting and truly unique constructions, and what is there is such a thing that is incomprehensible for whom and for what devices were created.

PS A company can do video clips with presentations.
Author:
Photos used:
zbroya.info
47 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Same lech
    Same lech 1 March 2018 15: 11
    +9
    How much does this rifle weigh and after shooting you are tormented by cleaning the trunks ... of which as many as five pieces ... well, inventors came up with hemorrhoids ... smile
  2. CentDo
    CentDo 1 March 2018 15: 21
    +3
    And then they don’t fasten the optics there? Judging by the first photo, only this monster fly can be seen through it.
    1. lexx2038
      lexx2038 1 March 2018 15: 29
      +9
      In general, to be consistent, it would be necessary to stick five optics - for each eye.
      1. alex-cn
        alex-cn 1 March 2018 16: 28
        +1
        I don’t understand, and who has five eyes? The spider, I know, eight ... repeat
        1. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 1 March 2018 16: 41
          +2
          Quote: alex-cn
          I don’t understand, and who has five eyes?

          At the hedgehog of the sea. wink
          1. alex-cn
            alex-cn 1 March 2018 16: 44
            +1
            he has no eyes at all, he was badly taught biology ...
            1. Mordvin 3
              Mordvin 3 1 March 2018 16: 59
              +4
              Well, the bee then. In general, besides the fact that cats need a tail as a rudder, I remember little from biology.
      2. Vladimir 5
        Vladimir 5 1 March 2018 19: 40
        +2
        Of all the most worthy is a full salvo. The axes of the trunks should be scattered along 2 axes, so that at a distance of 300 m, the bullets theoretically lie in the perimeter of a circle with a diameter of 1 meter. The point is that in a combat situation more often the shooting is carried out on a vantage point for a briefly appearing target or under dense enemy fire. Here a volley shot increases the probability of hitting such targets. The electric method is certainly more promising than the mechanical one, which greatly simplifies the design of the weapon., But requires a new cartridge. The need for qualitatively basic rearmament has long matured, and we need to prepare for such qualitative changes in the new generation of small arms ... Of course, this model is unpromising and among small arms exotic ..
  3. Rebus
    Rebus 1 March 2018 15: 21
    +3
    This is not a rifle, but some kind of misunderstanding.
  4. tracer
    tracer 1 March 2018 15: 36
    +5
    Remember, I wrote about the root problem of all weapons developments in the USA? Correct lack of education ... But you can add to it the specifics of the companies .. where everyone does not care, everyone holds on to his high chair and everyone will work or not until the drum. Even better if not ... More service.
    1. alex-cn
      alex-cn 1 March 2018 16: 31
      +2
      Somehow, electric ignition did not take root in hunting, at least weapons. It was proposed by the Belgians back in the mid-60s. There was a lot of noise, but it ended in nothing.
      1. ProkletyiPirat
        ProkletyiPirat 1 March 2018 22: 59
        +3
        Quote: alex-cn
        There was a lot of noise, but it ended in nothing.

        This is the main problem. People are taught to count, remember formulas and Talmuds, but they are not taught to analyze information. As a result, we get many projects for which tons of money are spent and which have "super technologies" but which are guaranteed to "not take off". In the military-industrial complex, this is especially noticeable because neither the military, nor the developers, nor the manufacturers understand that the main thing is not the "TTX" of the weapon and not its "quantity", but tactical and strategic capabilities on the battlefield. Neither electro ignition nor caseless shells give any tactical and strategic opportunities, therefore they are doomed to failure in advance.
        1. alex-cn
          alex-cn 2 March 2018 04: 21
          0
          There are just a lot of technical advantages in electric ignition; it practically eliminates USM.
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 3 March 2018 06: 57
            +1
            Quote: alex-cn
            There are just a lot of technical advantages in electric ignition, it practically eliminates the trigger

            A wonderful statement, in itself it is true, but here we come back to my post:
            Quote: ProkletyiPirat
            Neither electro ignition nor caseless shells provide any tactical and strategic opportunities.

            So the question is: What tactical and / or strategic advantages does replacing the “trigger mechanism” with the “electric ignition mechanism” give?
            I don’t see these advantages at the moment, MORE than that I see a deterioration in tactical and strategic capabilities, for example, the inability to use electric ignition in weapons designed for shooting under water.
            1. alex-cn
              alex-cn 3 March 2018 09: 21
              0
              this applies more to hunting weapons, minimizes the number of any samples that weaken the receiver. But, in principle, the electric ignition in LNG-9 works in all conditions. I'm not talking about 2a28, it's dry there.
              1. ProkletyiPirat
                ProkletyiPirat 3 March 2018 13: 21
                0
                Quote: alex-cn
                But, in principle, the electric ignition in LNG-9 works in all conditions

                Once again, the point is not whether it works or not, it is a matter of tactical and strategic capabilities, advantages and disadvantages. In particular, electric ignition if it gives an advantage is one thing, if it gives an advantage it is another, if it gives nothing but only harms, then it is in vain. For example, in large artillery, electric ignition can be used for more efficient ignition, in recoilless ones to simplify the design (there is no USM, it is easier to implement reverse thrust). But in the machines is expensive and no advantages. In hunting rifles, this is nafig, useless rise in the cost of construction and ammunition.
        2. AlexMark
          2 March 2018 12: 03
          +3
          So for those. specialties need to enter specials. A history course, where all this will be described in detail and an explanation is given why it is not necessary to do so. You look at a new one, you understand that you have seen it somewhere, you start searching and come across a similar construction from the end of the 19th and early 20th century. And it would be okay to get better, sometimes they do the same thing, breaking the forehead on the same rake. request
          1. Grid
            Grid 2 March 2018 22: 20
            +1
            And it would be okay to improve, sometimes they do the same thing, breaking their forehead against the same rake.

            I completely agree.
          2. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 3 March 2018 07: 03
            +1
            Quote: AlexMark
            So for those. specialties need to enter special. history course, where it’s all here it will be painted in detail and given an explanation of why this is not necessary

            Already exists, does not help, everything flies out of my head, books do not allow me to search and update, there is Internet but existing services (also Wikipedia) are unsuitable for this work. And the main problem is that neither in institutes (VPO), nor in colleges / technical schools (STR), nor in schools / lyceums (BUT \ BO) there is no subject "Analytics", here chemistry and biology are, in some places even religion is But analysts are NOT. Even worse, there isn’t even the scientific discipline "Analytics", here there is logic, there is mathematical analysis, but there is no analytics fool
        3. Grid
          Grid 2 March 2018 22: 19
          0
          Neither electro ignition nor caseless shells provide any tactical and strategic opportunities,

          Yeah. Here are just a metal sleeve by weight is almost half the mass of the cartridge. The transition to a sleeveless PSU means almost doubling the wearable ammunition.
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 3 March 2018 07: 15
            0
            Grille your post above is just an example of the inability to analyze information!
            Quote: Grille
            (1) the mass of the metal sleeve is almost half the mass of the cartridge

            Quote: Grille
            (2) Switching to a shellless PSU means almost doubling the wearable ammunition

            Suppose the first statement is true, then the question arises whether the second statement is true?
            answer: no, it is not necessarily true, because a cartridgeless case has a higher mass of a bullet (projectile) since part of the mass of the cartridge goes into the mass of the bullet.
            It turns out that your statement "(1) && (2) => doubling the ammunition" is false. In general, I advise (for the future) to read what mathematical logic is, especially what predicates, sets and logical operations on them are. hi
            1. Grid
              Grid 3 March 2018 07: 46
              0
              answer: no, it is not necessarily true, because a cartridgeless case has a higher mass of a bullet (projectile) since part of the mass of the cartridge goes into the mass of the bullet.

              What a fright? We take and compare: 4,7X21 DE11 - the mass of the bullet is 3,4 g, the mass of the cartridge is 5,24 g. Domestic 5,45x39 (7H6) - the mass of the bullet is 3,4 g, the mass of the cartridge is 10,5 grams.
              As you can see with the same bullet weight, the German cartridge is exactly two times lighter and slightly more powerful. Thus, my statement without any "allowable" is true.
              In general, I advise (for the future) to read what mathematical logic is

              Advise your wife (and preferably mother-in-law) how to cook cabbage soup. Well for a change you can take a little interest in the design of ammunition.
              1. ProkletyiPirat
                ProkletyiPirat 3 March 2018 13: 31
                0
                Quote: Grille
                What a fright? We take and compare: 4,7X21 DE11 - the mass of the bullet is 3,4 g, the mass of the cartridge is 5,24 g. Domestic 5,45x39 (7H6) - the mass of the bullet is 3,4 g, the mass of the cartridge is 10,5 grams.
                As you can see with the same bullet weight, the German cartridge is exactly two times lighter and slightly more powerful. Thus, my statement without any "allowable" is true.

                subtract the mass of gunpowder hi
                1. Grid
                  Grid 3 March 2018 14: 47
                  0
                  subtract the mass of gunpowder

                  Uncle, and specifically in this caseless cartridge, everything that is not the mass of a bullet is a propellant charge of gunpowder ... I repeat, for you personally, you nichrome do not understand that there is a firearm through which historical lines it went. Moreover, you do not really understand the essence of firearms.
                  1. ProkletyiPirat
                    ProkletyiPirat 3 March 2018 20: 10
                    +1
                    I don’t understand much at all, they often tell me lol
                    And now look, you are removing from the “shot” (cartridge) a system of protection from the external environment (that is, a sleeve) thereby depriving the “shot” of a number of tactical and strategic capabilities, while giving new tactical opportunities in the form of increasing the rate of fire and wearable BC . So, the amount of what you clean exceeds the amount of what you give, therefore, sleeveless and unnecessary to anyone.
                    You do not understand the essence, because of the incorrect construction of predicates, sets, and their relations. For example, you don’t understand that if you give the sleeveless system an MBV defense system equal to a normal shot, then its mass will remain the same just by moving from the sleeve to the cartridge. At the same time, you emphasize the saying "well, it’s twice as easy!" this is true, but again, this is true not because the shot became shellless, but because other, more expensive materials are used, that is, you simply compare two fractions without leading them to a common denominator. For example, if we bring both fractions (both shots) to the same denominator (cost), then we will see that in a shell shot you can increase the cost of the shell itself, for example by making it from more expensive but lighter materials, thereby the difference in shot mass will be minimized. And here we again come to the thought "why this has not been done?" and the answer will be the same, all the same denominator, only this time in the numerator will be or "N boxless case" or "X pieces of tanks \ planes \ etc + F boxes of shell shots" In general, learn the logic and mathematical logic, they set brains well.
                    1. Grid
                      Grid 4 March 2018 02: 27
                      0
                      Something, uncle, brings you up. Each of your subsequent comments is not logically connected with the previous one and the answer to it. For it all started with the mass of the cartridge, and now you have already jumped to the functionality of the sleeve ...
                      And you, by chance, are not the incarnation of Gridasov?
                      1. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 4 March 2018 15: 44
                        0
                        The same thought goes through the whole branch from my top post
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        Neither electro ignition nor caseless shells give any tactical and strategic opportunities, therefore they are doomed to failure in advance.

                        you started to claim that I was wrong, and there is an advantage in the “bigger wearable BC”, I pointed out that it’s not so because “the mass of the sleeve will turn into the mass of the bullet”, to which you started to refer to two cartridges, you painted your calculation there, I indicated that it does not take into account the mass of gunpowder. and after your next post, I took a closer look and googled the description of the shots (cartridges) you brought, and here I realized what exactly you are mistaken and why we have different opinions, I first bring to a common denominator and then compare, you compare without reductions to a common denominator. I described it in detail above.

                        So it all started not with a mass of gunpowder, but with your mistake in building predicates, sets, and their relations, that is, to put it simply you made a mistake in building a chain of logical reasoning, read my advice about predicates, sets, and their relationships, don’t go deep into “mathematical logic” (math logic and logic are not the same, so you don’t need to dig deep), but everyone and everyone should be familiar with them, it’s useful in terms of ability to analyze information.
      2. Grid
        Grid 2 March 2018 22: 13
        +1
        Somehow, electric ignition did not take root in hunting, at least weapons. It was proposed by the Belgians back in the mid-60s.

        You're wrong. Electro-ignition of a powder charge in handguns was proposed back in the late 19th century.
        There was a lot of noise, but it ended in nothing.

        Why? In the air guns, the same Germans themselves used an electro-fuse sleeve. The well-known "Bazooka" had electric ignition.
  5. philosopher
    philosopher 1 March 2018 18: 16
    +1
    The existence of rifle information in the article is that it is stillborn. In a word, it is fully described.
  6. gross kaput
    gross kaput 1 March 2018 19: 37
    +1
    Attempts to reincarnate the SALVO program and our work with TKB-059
  7. shinobi
    shinobi 2 March 2018 05: 05
    +2
    The first breech-loading devices of the IVX-XV centuries were such. Removable chambers and all that. Then we would return to the idea of ​​unitary loading of muskets in paper blanks. But no. Liquid explosives and weapons based on them look much more interesting. Good and a machine gun for diesel fuel in 1939 was washed down.
  8. Locksmith
    Locksmith 2 March 2018 06: 49
    0
    And the company knows how to make videos with presentations.

    Duc to Hollywood and work, in action movies will be the coolest wunderwaffe laughing
    1. AlexMark
      2 March 2018 11: 58
      +2
      And games, games forgot smile
  9. tchoni
    tchoni 2 March 2018 08: 25
    0
    And I drew attention to the actual lack of feedback from this device. Either this cartridge is dead or still this rifle is not the same as the author is crucifying about her
    1. AlexMark
      2 March 2018 11: 55
      +4
      And you imagine the weight of this weapon with a block of five barrels, and that's the whole secret of the lack of recoil wink
  10. Serzh_R
    Serzh_R 2 March 2018 08: 34
    0
    THX weapons are not shown at all and information about why it was created, judging by the first replicas of the author will not. So I understood from the comments - what kind of fools do these Americans do, try, and we have a modified AK 74 or this is AK 47.
    1. AlexMark
      2 March 2018 11: 57
      +2
      Simply, there are samples of weapons that are made with the aim of "mastering the budget," which can be found in all countries. Work is being done while the investor is milking, there is an opinion that this is exactly the case.
  11. hezbola
    hezbola 2 March 2018 15: 07
    0
    ..and we still complain about our education ..
  12. Michael_Zverev
    Michael_Zverev 2 March 2018 20: 03
    +2
    Somewhere I've seen something like this ...
    1. Grid
      Grid 2 March 2018 22: 22
      +1
      Somewhere I've seen something like this ...

      Well, I don’t play like that ... Straight off the “harmonica” of Jonathan Browning from the keyboard ...
  13. Catfish
    Catfish 4 March 2018 02: 49
    +2
    Something similar was with pistols at the turn of the century. Type vertical five-barrel Derringer under a unitary cartridge for pocket socks. Several models of similar weapons from different companies. Along with Browning and revolvers of different systems in the Kuznetsovsky catalog with the price. Unfortunately I do not remember the year of release of the catalog. There, in general, in a good schedule, a damn bunch of all sorts of trunks was depicted. Thanks to Mark again. wink
  14. Tarasios
    Tarasios 4 March 2018 13: 20
    0
    Hollywood will appreciate) They only need to give weapons of a futuristic look) And if it really does, then it does - generally get hurt)
  15. Grid
    Grid 5 March 2018 15: 22
    0
    ProkletyiPirat,

    0
    ProkletyiPirat Yesterday, 15:44 ↑
    The same thought goes through the whole branch from my top post
    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
    Neither electro ignition nor caseless shells give any tactical and strategic opportunities, therefore they are doomed to failure in advance.

    you started to say that I’m wrong, and there is an advantage in the “bigger wearable BK”, I pointed out that it’s not so because “the mass of the sleeve will go into the mass of the bullet”,
    Uncle, I read to you ALREADY wrote this:
    / What fright? We take and compare: 4,7X21 DE11 - the mass of the bullet is 3,4 g, the mass of the cartridge is 5,24 g. Domestic 5,45x39 (7N6) - the mass of the bullet is 3,4 g, the mass of the cartridge is 10,5 grams. /
  16. Grid
    Grid 5 March 2018 15: 23
    0
    ProkletyiPirat,
    Mdja ...
    It’s hard to be sick all over the head, this is not treated.
    And therefore go thou forest.
  17. Boris Muromtsev
    Boris Muromtsev 7 March 2018 02: 12
    0
    And if it gets wet it will
  18. Grid
    Grid 7 March 2018 13: 46
    +1
    ProkletyiPirat,
    So, the amount of what you clean exceeds the sum of what you give, because sleeveless and unnecessary to anyone.

    Baby, kill your head against the wall. I gave you the specific parameters of SPECIFIC cartridges. They, the CHILD, REALLY exist and have the STATED characteristics. Alas and ah ... You can already start to run up ...
    For example, you don’t understand that if you give the sleeveless system an MBV defense system equal to a normal shot, then its mass will remain the same just by moving from the sleeve to the cartridge.

    Baby, did you understand what you said?
    You do not understand the essence, because of the incorrect construction of predicates, sets, and their relations.

    Baby, that’s an insult already. Moreover, an insult to an ordinary SOVIET engineer in the lack of knowledge of discrete mathematics and set theory ...
    What can I say, if I were close to you, I would come and stupidly clean my face, and so - live ...
    So it all started not with a mass of gunpowder, but with your mistake in building predicates, sets and their relationships, that is, to put it simply, you made a mistake in building a chain of logical reasoning,

    ... Words are not only emotions. Baby, I gave you a very concrete, REAL and TESTED example, of my innocence, and am I wrong?
    Baby, emerge from the sky-high empires to our sinful land. You may break it, or you may realize that mathematics is only a LANGUAGE.
  19. Grid
    Grid 9 March 2018 14: 55
    +1
    ProkletyiPirat,
    The same thought goes through the whole branch from my top post

    Throughout the whole branch, not one of your thoughts reinforced by reality follows. I sometimes reinforce mine, and you?