Why are triple base propellants not used in firearms?

AI Thread Summary
Triple base propellants are not commonly used in firearms due to their slower burn characteristics and potential toxicity, making them less suitable for hand-held weapons like assault rifles and pistols. While they could reduce muzzle flash and barrel wear, the benefits are outweighed by the cost-effectiveness of replacing barrels and the limited merit of flash reduction in most engagements. The discussion highlights that smaller calibers require faster-burning powders, which are more compatible with typical firearm designs. Additionally, triple base propellants are less compatible with cellulose-based smokeless powders, further limiting their application in small arms. Overall, the use of triple base propellants remains primarily in heavy weaponry due to these factors.
chemisthypnos
Messages
39
Reaction score
11
I would think that the use of triple base propellants in hand-held weapons, such as assault rifles or pistols, would be greatly beneficial as its use would remove the muzzle flash. Also, it would decrease wear-and-tear on the weapon itself, I would think. I have found some people saying that triple base propellants are only used in heavy weaponry (such as for tanks or naval vessels) due to teh scarcity of nitroguanidinium https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/bullets3.htm . Does anyone know why, generally, only single base propellants are used for assault rifles and pistols?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
You can use triple-base propellant for pistols, not problem at all. It just makes no point because erosion of small barrels is already low, and low-caliber barrels themselves are cheap. It is more economical to replace barrels of firearm periodically rather than to have higher paycheck for ammunition..
 
The erosion of the barrel would be a secondary concern at best. The ability to hide the muzzle flash, however, I would think would be a convincing reason to use the tripple base propellant over single or double base propellants.
 
chemisthypnos said:
The erosion of the barrel would be a secondary concern at best. The ability to hide the muzzle flash, however, I would think would be a convincing reason to use the tripple base propellant over single or double base propellants.
Good Shooter = Experienced shooter = A lot of cheap ammo
Reducing a muzzle flash have actually very limited merit. Among army officers, i heard a lot about recoil and handling specifics but not much about muzzle flash. I think muzzle flash reduction is meritous to very specialized forms of engagement only, like AA guns or sniper fire at night.
 
  • Like
Likes CalcNerd and Klystron
Could triple based have slower burn characteristics?

The smaller a round it, generally the shorter its optimal barrel length, the faster powder it needs. The goal is to use only as fast a powder as is necessary to have nearly all the powder burn in the barrel.

A 9mm round uses faster powder than a .44 magnum round.
A rifle round, any rifle round (assault rifles use a round that is no different from any other rifle round) uses slower powder than most pistol rounds.

And it follows that big guns in tanks and naval vessels would use even slower powder than small arms.

So?? Is it simply that triple based powders burn slower?
 
  • Like
Likes trurle
donmei said:
Could triple based have slower burn characteristics?

The smaller a round it, generally the shorter its optimal barrel length, the faster powder it needs. The goal is to use only as fast a powder as is necessary to have nearly all the powder burn in the barrel.

A 9mm round uses faster powder than a .44 magnum round.
A rifle round, any rifle round (assault rifles use a round that is no different from any other rifle round) uses slower powder than most pistol rounds.

And it follows that big guns in tanks and naval vessels would use even slower powder than small arms.

So?? Is it simply that triple based powders burn slower?
Yes, adding 10% nitroguanidine in one example reduce burn speed by 50%. Will depend on other components though.
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2017/ra/c7ra01607g
Also, it seems to be poorly compatible with cellulose-based smokeless powders
https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/12105
and quite toxic (grade 3 toxicity)
From handling standpoint, nitroguanidine is as convenient to use as picric acid which was already phased out from military applications.
 
Last edited:
Hi all, i have some questions about the tesla turbine: is a tesla turbine more efficient than a steam engine or a stirling engine ? about the discs of the tesla turbine warping because of the high speed rotations; does running the engine on a lower speed solve that or will the discs warp anyway after time ? what is the difference in efficiency between the tesla turbine running at high speed and running it at a lower speed ( as fast as possible but low enough to not warp de discs) and: i...

Similar threads

Replies
49
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
10K
Back
Top