Pointless muse of the day

I wonder if anyone has tried liquid propellant for projectile weapons? Wouldn’t that be cool? Load the normal way, but instead of 21 grains of Red Dot, it used 5 ml of Liqui-pulshion.

Could be or crazy?

Could be or crazy?

Or could be crazy. Would a liquid affect the primer adversely? Would an imperfect crimp allow the liquid to escape? Accurate measurement would be a potential problem.

It has been done. With WATER! Was back in the late 80's or early 90's. It was a huge success from handgun calibers all the way up to artillery. But the electrical power needed meant that you would need a backpack of about 50 pounds of batteries and capacitors for a handgun or a tractor trailer for an artillery piece along with a massive generator to keep the batteries charged. They used water as the propellant and then dumped huge amperage into the case through electrical contacts. Velocities roughly doubled over factory loadings with no increases in pressure and very little barrel erosion. .45ACP was pushing 230gr ball at 1,400fps, .223 could push 55's up over 5,000fps and artillery was pushing very close to 5,000fps.

There were drawbacks though in addition the massive electrical charges needed. One was that the electrical discharge would disassociate the hydrogen and oxygen molecules that make up water and when they vented to the atmosphere when the projectile left the muzzle they would often recombine explosively. Getting a fireball from water seems odd but that is what happened. The other was that water freezes at 32* so the ammo would have to be stored above freezing. Easy enough in the summer but in the winter a huge problem. Ammo that froze would swell and deform the brass or split it. But it was really the power needs that were the issue. In order to supply power to the gun a ship would need an additional power supply, basicly another whole engine system in the ship just for the gun's needs. Repeated shots would put a serious drain on power. It could be done but to what end? The last ship on ship combat for the US with guns was in 1961. Since then naval action for the US has all been with missiles. It is like battleships, we haven't used one for anything but shore bombardment since October of 1944.

Thanks, Lon. I'd never heard of that before.

It has been done. With WATER!  Was back in the late 80's or early 90's. It was a huge success from handgun calibers all the way up to artillery. But the electrical power needed meant that you would need a backpack of about 50 pounds of batteries and capacitors for a handgun or a tractor trailer for an artillery piece along with a massive generator to keep the batteries charged. They used water as the propellant and then dumped huge amperage into the case through electrical contacts. Velocities roughly doubled over factory loadings with no increases in pressure and very little barrel erosion. .45ACP was pushing 230gr ball at 1,400fps, .223 could push 55's up over 5,000fps and artillery was pushing very close to 5,000fps.

There were drawbacks though in addition the massive electrical charges needed. One was that the electrical discharge would disassociate the hydrogen and oxygen molecules that make up water and when they vented to the atmosphere when the projectile left the muzzle they would often recombine explosively. Getting a fireball from water seems odd but that is what happened. The other was that water freezes at 32* so the ammo would have to be stored above freezing. Easy enough in the summer but in the winter a huge problem. Ammo that froze would swell and deform the brass or split it. But it was really the power needs that were the issue. In order to supply power to the gun a ship would need an additional power supply, basicly another whole engine system in the ship just for the gun's needs. Repeated shots would put a serious drain on power. It could be done but to what end? The last ship on ship combat for the US with guns was in 1961. Since then naval action for the US has all been with missiles. It is like battleships, we haven't used one for anything but shore bombardment since October of 1944.

That’s very cool. Never considered water. I was thinking that some liquids have different volatility - flash points - burn rates - etc. (Like gasoline vs diesel fuel vs lighter fuel vs Sterno…)

So, if you injected a couple milliliters of gel into the case… We shot something (maybe the Sellier & Bellot 9mm?) on Saturday that was VERY dirty and my son was griping about the unburned powder when we cleaned guns afterward. I wondered if you could get more complete burn with a liquid or gel. It’s interesting that they found minimal bore degradation.

Anyway. That was my contribution to the ‘Useless Deep Thoughts File’

It has been done. With WATER!  Was back in the late 80's or early 90's. It was a huge success from handgun calibers all the way up to artillery. But the electrical power needed meant that you would need a backpack of about 50 pounds of batteries and capacitors for a handgun or a tractor trailer for an artillery piece along with a massive generator to keep the batteries charged. They used water as the propellant and then dumped huge amperage into the case through electrical contacts. Velocities roughly doubled over factory loadings with no increases in pressure and very little barrel erosion. .45ACP was pushing 230gr ball at 1,400fps, .223 could push 55's up over 5,000fps and artillery was pushing very close to 5,000fps.

There were drawbacks though in addition the massive electrical charges needed. One was that the electrical discharge would disassociate the hydrogen and oxygen molecules that make up water and when they vented to the atmosphere when the projectile left the muzzle they would often recombine explosively. Getting a fireball from water seems odd but that is what happened. The other was that water freezes at 32* so the ammo would have to be stored above freezing. Easy enough in the summer but in the winter a huge problem. Ammo that froze would swell and deform the brass or split it. But it was really the power needs that were the issue. In order to supply power to the gun a ship would need an additional power supply, basicly another whole engine system in the ship just for the gun's needs. Repeated shots would put a serious drain on power. It could be done but to what end? The last ship on ship combat for the US with guns was in 1961. Since then naval action for the US has all been with missiles. It is like battleships, we haven't used one for anything but shore bombardment since October of 1944.

That’s very cool. Never considered water. I was thinking that some liquids have different volatility - flash points - burn rates - etc. (Like gasoline vs diesel fuel vs lighter fuel vs Sterno…)

So, if you injected a couple milliliters of gel into the case… We shot something (maybe the Sellier & Bellot 9mm?) on Saturday that was VERY dirty and my son was griping about the unburned powder when we cleaned guns afterward. I wondered if you could get more complete burn with a liquid or gel. It’s interesting that they found minimal bore degradation.

Anyway. That was my contribution to the ‘Useless Deep Thoughts File’

There actually is another possibility in the works. A gel that is made of high energy solids, think nitrocellulose with other ingredients to make a gel. There are other possible combinations that actually have higher energy. They call them "shock gels". Some of the nifty ones use corn syrup in the formula. Some of them have pretty impressive ballistic profiles and the ability to produce higher velocities at lower pressures. There are of course hangups, they are more sensitive to temperature than is ideal. I am sure they will eventually get worked out.

The lack of bore degradation had a lot to do with the lower temperatures involved in the the process. The disocciation of molecules of water is endothermic. It actually pulls heat out of the process. It also forms a plasma but it is a "cold plasma". The high temperatures are confined to the electrons, they can reach 10,000* C but the rest of the water and vapor remains at essentially "room" temperature. Being that it is essentially boiled water under pressure the temps are far lower than combusting gunpowder.