On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Tim <tim@little-possums.net> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 06:56:15AM -0400, Richard Aiken wrote:
> To achieve the same muzzle velocity without squeezing, you would
> need a relatively much larger cannon bore and a consequently much
> larger round.

Or a much simpler non-collapsing sabot without the energy wasted to
friction.


But you can't use that "wasted" energy to propell a non-collapsing saboted round. This is because such a "much simpler" round will fragment inside a non-tapering barrel when subjected to the same level of exploding force that a collapsing round in a tapered bore experiences. Taking the path of least resistance, the expanding gases in a STRAIGHT bore will blow the lighter sabot AROUND the round's heavier core. And if you make the sabot and it's attachment method strong enough to resist that result, then it isn't a sabot round any longer. It's a normal, much larger regular round. 

The difficulty in machining tapered bores (prior to development of 3D manufacturing) plus the ability of a NON-tapered bore to fire other types of rounds is why tapered bores fell out of use.

In a setting where the only round you want to fire is armor-piercing, 3D manufacturing is the standard, artificial diamond is available, ammo storage is at a premium and extreme muzzle velocity is necessary, tapered bores could easily come back into fashion. 


--
Richard Aiken

"Never insult anyone by accident."  Robert A. Heinlein
"A word to the wise ain't necessary -- it's the stupid ones that need the advice." - Bill Cosby
"We know a little about a lot of things; just enough to make us dangerous." Dean Winchester