But I think it’s more correct call those cartridges “fly away case” not caseless.
It seams they are very similar to Russian 40 mm grenades.
IN ENGLISH ANY AMMUNITION WHICH DOES NOT LEAVE A CARTRIDGE CASE TO BE DISPOSED OF IS CALLED CASELESS. “FLYAWAY CASE” MAY MAKE SENSE IN RUSSIAN BUT IN ENGLISH ALL CASES “FLY AWAY” FROM THE GUN IN EXTRACTION JUST IN ANOTHER DIRECTION. THE CHINESE AND SOVIET CASELESS GRENADES ARE ACTUALLY ROCKETS WHICH ARE PERCUSSION FIRED AND ,IN FACT, HAVE NO CASE AT ALL. THAT REALLY IS CASELESS. THESE ARE MODERN DAY VERSIONS OF THE JAPANESE “KNEE MORTAR” SHELLS ADAPTED FOR MORE DIRECT FIRE BY TUNED VENTURI DESIGN AND RIFLED BARRELS.OF COURSE THE GERMAN 9MMS OF WW2 ERA AND THE GYROJETS LATER WERE THE SAME TYPE OF ROCKET AMMO. NO DOUBT THAT THE CHINESE LIKED THE SOVIET DESIGN AND JUST REDUCED THE CALIBER(TO SAVE FACE ?). A GOOD IDEA IS A GOOD IDEA IN ANY LANGUAGE.
Sorry but this is wrong definition. and they are not rockects because of whole charge explode (burn) before projectile leaves barrel and from the beggining (V0) of flying their speed becomes lesser and lesser (V10 for example is lesser than V0). Rockects are different. For example their V10 is bigger than V0.
And fly away case soulution also mean what it doesn’t require extraction process and live chamber empty after shot (and fly away cartridges are different - those ones also have case (where charge storing). Case could leave chamber with bullet or after bullet(.
Sorry too many mistakes in my post it’s too late here or too earlier :) I’m not argue with you just giving my opinion what it’s not fully correct classification.
The only Chinese caseless UGL rounds I’ve seen pictures of are 35mm calibre, not 30mm. Are they making them in both calibres?
Incidentally, the term “caseless ammunition” can be used in English to refer either to rounds in which the propellant is a solid block external to the projectile, or ones in which the propellant is held within the base of the projectile. In the latter instance, it is difficult on first sight to tell the difference between caseless gun ammunition and rocket ammunition: both can have have venturi in the base.
The difference, as Yuri said, is that the propellant in the gun ammunition is burned up within the barrel; the projectile is also pushed forwards by the pressure of the gas trapped in the barrel, which means that both the barrel and the projectile have to be strongly made and the recoil can be used to operate the gun mechanism (e.g. Japanese Ho-301 40mm aircraft gun).
With rocket ammunition (e.g. Gyrojet), the projectile and barrel are quite lightly made because the impulse is provided not by gas pressure but by jet reaction, and the projectile keeps accelerating after it has left the barrel.
JANE’S IS NOW CALLING CASELESS AMMO “FLYAWAY CASE” ? WHICH PART OF THE CHINESE AMMO DID YOU MEASURE ? WHAT DO YOU CALL A HUNT JENNINGS ROCKET BALL ?
Regarding the difference, if any, between a “caseless” cartridge, and a “flyaway case” cartridge, would it be too simple to say that if the powder chamber is formed as a permanent part of the projectile and impacts the target with the projectile, it is a Caseless cartridge, as with the 9mm Aupo. If the powder chamber leaves the barrel separately and/or drops away from the projectile, NOT impacting the target with the projectile, it is a Flyaway Case cartridge? By the way, have not seen a Jane’s book on weapons since I sent back the first one that came out due to the hundred or so provable errors in it, found in about twenty minutes just scanning it. Are current Jane’s books on arms and ammunition of sufficient quality that it matters what they call something? Not sarcasm, an honest question.
First I’m sorry if I harm anybody by this issue.
9mm AUPO is good reference! In general its same case attached to the bullet (with some constructive differences from conventional metallic cases). This is just another way to extract case using bullet but not extractor or gases pressure. The main principle of AUPO it
THERE IS A GREAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ROCKET AMMUNITION AND ROCKETS AND ROCKET LAUNCHER AMMUNITION. THERE ARE PHILOLOGIC , EPISTOMOLOGICAL ,ARCHITECTONIC AND AVOCATIONAL NUANCES TO BE CONSIDERED AND EXPLAINED.(I WILL GET TO THAT AFTER THE HOLIDAYS WHEN I HAVE MORE TIME). JANE’S IS CERTAINLY KNOWN FOR ITS MULTITUDE OF PUBLISHED ERRORS IN THE AMMUNITION FIELD( WHICH HAS CAUSED SERIOUS STUDENTS OF THE FIELD TO IGNORE THEIR BOOKS) AND THERE HAS BEEN A MARKED BUT NOT SUFFICIENT IMPROVEMENT SINCE TONY WILLIAMS GOT IN THE GAME. THE GREAT PROBLEM IS THAT NONE OF THE “EDITORS” OF THE AMMUNITION BOOKS ARE “COLLECTORS” OF AMMUNITION. THEY ARE AND HAVE BEEN “WRITERS” , SOMETIMES RETIRED GUN FOLKS ( HOGG WAS AN ARTILLERY MAN WITH VERY LITTLE KNOWLEDGE OF AMMUNITION BELOW HIS CALIBER RANGE ) WHO ARE NOTORIOUSLY UNEDUCTED IN THE DETAIL OF AMMUNITION WHICH COLLECTORS LOVE. HOGG ONE TIME TOLD ME THAT COLLECTORS WERE A PROBLEM BECAUSE THEY WERE CONSTANTLY WRITING LETTERS WANTING THING WHICH WERE NOT IMPORTANT TO BE CHANGED. A RECENT ,MAYBE CURRENT(I NO LONGER BOTHER WITH JANE’S) EDITOR TOLD ME THAT HE GOT HIS JOB WITH THEM AFTER DECADES OF BOTHERING THEM WITH CORRECTIONS TO THEIR PUBLISHED HANDBOOK. THE WILLIAMS SITE IS VERY INTERESTING BUT FULL OF MISTAKES AND OMISSIONS FROM A COLLECTORS POINT OF VIEW BUT THE PURPOSE AS I SEE IT IS TO SELL BOOKS NOT TO CATER TO THE MINUTIA OF INTEREST OF CARTRIDGE COLLECTORS. WE CARE ABOUT ANNULUS COLOR,CRIMP PATTERNS, CANNELURES,MEPLAT DIAMETER AND OTHER SUCH CHARACTERISTICS WHICH ARE OF TOTAL USELESSNESS TO NEARLY EVERYONE ELSE. TRY RUNNING THE WORD MEPLAT PAST THE NEXT 100 GUN FOLKS WHO YOU ENCOUNTER AND SEE IF ANY HAVE EVEN A BIT OF AN IDEA OF WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. I SALUTE TONY WILLIAMS FOR HIS EFFORTS IN BRINGING AMMO INFORMATION INTO HIS VARIOUS BOOKS ABOUT GUNS. HIS ON LINE AMMO SITE IS A GOOD BEGINNER SITE AND COPIED WIDELY-I HAVE EVEN SEEN IT IN CHINESE! HOWEVER , HE WILL NEVER BE A CARTRIDGE COLLECTOR UNTIL HE STARTS POSTING HEADSTAMPS , CRIMP PATTERNS , CANNELURE DESIGNS AND MEPLAT DIAMETERS !
I think I ought to be responding to these posts :)
Not all cartridge collectors have the same interests. As I am the editor of The Cartridge Researcher, the monthly bulletin of the European Cartridge Research Association (the European equivalent of IAA), I have this impressed on me all of the time.
I have been collecting ammunition for nearly 40 years, although only getting into it seriously over the last 15. My primary interest has always been in collecting different case types, from pocket pistol rounds up to tank gun ammo. Most of my collection consists of “single items”, i.e. only one example of each case type. My secondary interest is in projectile types, but I usually only collect those which are markedly different or significant (AP and HE, for instance). I have very little interest in headstamps, and none in associated impedimenta like belt links and packaging.
I am also interested in the guns which fire the ammo, and (in the case of larger ones) what they are fitted to, e.g. aircraft, AFVs and warships. Anyone who has any of my books, or who checks them out on my website, will rapidly become aware of this.
In other words, I am interested in “breadth” rather than “depth” in my studies of ammunition. I am well aware that some of my fellow collectors take a different view, and have learned an incredible amount of detail about a restricted range of ammunition - in extreme cases, in just one calibre. I don’t regard either approach as being better than the other, it’s just a question of what interests you.
For the last couple of years I have been working for Jane’s as co-editor of their Ammunition Handbook (JAH). I look after small arms, projected grenades, automatic cannon and mortar ammo (plus, more recently, riot control rounds), while my co-editor Lee Ness takes care of tank and naval guns and artillery. When I took over I started to make a number of changes with the aim of improving the content and presentation. The first batch came through in the 2005/6 edition, with further changes in the 2006/7 edition published last month. I think it’s now a lot better, but I’m not yet satisfied, and I expect that I will be making further changes in future editions.
Obviously, I can’t know everything about such a wide range of subjects. I have been able to make good use of my own collection, and the knowledge I have gained from it, both in JAH and in my books, but I will be the first to admit to errors and omissions. As far as the details of much of the ammunition in JAH is concerned, I inevitably have to rely to a great extent on information from manufacturers. Some of them take a keen interest and are very helpful, others don’t bother to reply to queries or requests to check their records - so the data in JAH tends to be patchy.
I am always most grateful to have any errors and omissions pointed out so that I can make corrections. Those who know my website will realise that I maintain ever-expanding pages of corrections and updates to my books there. That’s an open invitation to all of you!
Perhaps - and I say this only very slightly tongue in cheek - it would be worthwhile for the collecting fraternity to have a group which worked on defining the differences? This way, at least in our circles, we would be speaking with a common terminology?
The differences in this instance are subtle, but they are reasonably significant in terms of the design of the rounds and their function, at least as significant as many terminology differences we, if not the larger world, emphasize routinely.
I don’t have a dog in this fight, just making a suggestion.
A GROUP ? “Consensus is the absence of leadership” , Marg. Thatcher ( the iron lady ) Prime minister of Great Brit.