To sum it all up easily, there is NO ideal caliber in warfare. On today’s battlefields a bullet is required to penetrate armor to be practical, and it doesn’t matter if that armor is heavy or body. Bullets that do a good job of armor penetration are lousy expanders and/or exploders. So if you develop one that does a good job of making a nasty wound, it’s going to do a so so job of armor penetration. And if it does a good job of armor penetration ……… well you get the idea.

The 5.56 actually follows a really good principle. If the bullet tumbles in the wound by design, it’s going to do far more damage than it normally would by driving straight through. Which also gives it a solid chance at penetrating armor. To be honest, we probably should have left the 30-06 in place for a light machine gun round. It did a good job of penetrating, as well as creating wounds. Its problem was flawed design in the more portable models (BAR for example) that were used. Almost every complaint fielded in the article and the comments has more to do with weapon design than caliber.

Please rate this comment: 0  1

That said, the powers that be who outfitted the troops in Nam with the M16 in 1967 should be indicted brought to trial for murder for giving an unproven peice of s–t to the troops.

In most narratives of the Vietnam war, the protagonist cites that his M16 jams in the instant of need.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

What is that in your picture, a Red Ryder BB gun? That’s all they allow civies to own in Svenskapoika.

Please rate this comment: 0  1

Roosevelt said that soldiers shot in the brain, spine or heart died quickly, but soldiers who were hit in other places recovered quickly.

“Optimum” only has a practical meaning with respect to some optimizing function. If you have to carry your own bullets, optimum will be a smaller caliber. If you have someone else, or a vehicle, heavier makes more sense. If you don’t know the future, you guess, and hope that you can change your mind if it ends up being important. To the extend that you can control the future, you do so by selecting proper tactics.

Smart soldiers adapt their tactics to make the best use of the difference between their weapons and their enemys’ weapons. If you have a light bullet that doesn’t penetrate well, you keep up a steady fire to keep the enemys’ heads down, and maneuver around to shoot past their cover, or to use supporting fire. If you have a heavy round like the .50 BMG you can shoot through enemy cover, but maneuvering is slower, so you have to watch your own flanks more carefully.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

1.The 7x46mm UIAC is a true intermediate cartridge in caliber, length, case diameter, and recoil. Performance envelope is 7x43mm and 7x50mm circa 1950, but in a smaller package by using the Pedersen/M43 base instead of the Mauser/30-06 base. Smaller cartridge = smaller weapon.
2.7x46mm UIAC test cartridges outperform all current and purposed military cartridges used worldwide.
3.7x46mm UIAC would comfortably replace all current US and NATO rifle and machine gun cartridges without losing any lethality or range. One cartridge for all our infantry weapons, what a novel concept.
4.Test Cartridge: Muzzle Velocity: 2650 fps; Bullet Weight: 130 grains; Bullet Coeffiency: .411, this is better BC than either the 62 gr. M855 or 150 gr. M80.
5.Projectile is 130 grs. Spitzer Boattail with .411 BC. At targeted velocity. Purposed projectile would be 130gr. FMJ with the profile of a 140 gr. Spitzer Boattail, constructed similar to the 7.92×33 126gr. Polte bullet, this would further enhance the BC. The Polte design insures a rear biased weight, causing rapid upset on impact with soft tissue.
6.Velocity is held at 2650-2700 fps to regulate recoil, heat, pressure, and to allow controllability at combat firing rates in an assault rifle.
7.Purposed DDM cartridge would use .284 Sierra 175 gr. MK, with a BC of .608 even at 2400 fps this projectile has better flight performance than the current M118LR.
8.The 7x46mm UIAC was designed for combat in performance, recoil, and weight.

Please rate this comment: 1  0

I guess that boils down to logistics, do you want your guys tired and angry?

My cousin carried the m-249 saw through his tour of duty, the funniest thing he ever told me was when his predecessor convinced him to carry it. He said he couldn’t get anybody else to carry it through his whole tour.

Now if the army would put up the cash and come up with a lightweight, titanium and composite ar-10, that’d be something. Seems the 7mm and 6.8mm calibers are more economical though.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

Asians invented firearms and Europeans modernized them. Americans, such as Colt and Browning, provided great innovations. Some of the best are manufactured outside the U.S. HK, for example, is the number one supplier for Direct Action (DA)/CQB weapons world-wide. It is used not only by almost all LE special units but also by all U.S. military DA teams. I find it also humorous that when we study warfare in our training, we almost always study the teachings of one “dead German” or another (“dead German” used with levity but also respect). We even refer to lessons from French tacticians at times (such as Jomini). Incidentally, did you forget that we are descendants of Europeans (mostly)?

“Sean on 08 Jan 2009 at 4:01 am link comment

It’s cute when know-it-all Europeans pretend they’re more competent with firearms and firearm design than a nation with 70 million gun owners and the most effective military on earth.

Sigh.”

Please rate this comment: 1  0

http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/FULL/490?OpenDocument

It basically appeals to all governments not to advance small arms lethality beyond the state of the art.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

“The Undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments,

Inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of the 29th November (11th December), 1868,

Declare as follows:

The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.

The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.

It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power.

The present Declaration shall be ratified as soon as possible.

The ratification shall be deposited at The Hague.

A proces-verbal shall be drawn up on the receipt of each ratification, a copy of which, duly certified, shall be sent through the diplomatic channel to all the Contracting Powers.

The non-Signatory Powers may adhere to the present Declaration. For this purpose they must make their adhesion known to the Contracting Powers by means of a written notification addressed to the Netherlands Government, and by it communicated to all the other Contracting Powers.

In the event of one of the High Contracting Parties denouncing the present Declaration, such denunciation shall not take effect until a year after the notification made in writing to the Netherlands Government, and forthwith communicated by it to all the other Contracting Powers.

This denunciation shall only affect the notifying Power.

In faith of which the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Declaration, and have affixed their seals thereto.

Done at The Hague the 29th July, 1899, in a single copy, which shall be kept in the archives of the Netherlands Government, and of which copies, duly certified, shall be sent through the diplomatic channel to the Contracting Powers. “

Important things to note:
1. Only applies when fighting against another party who has signed the treaty. Insurgents, almost by defination, haven’t signed any treaties.

Same convention also banned the launching of projectiles or explosives from balloons.

“The Contracting Powers agree to prohibit, for a term of five years, the launching of projectiles and explosives from balloons, or by other new methods of a similar nature. “

Interesting how the whole bombardment from the air aspect has been ignored and the hollow point thing has be focused on.

Also amusing: St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868 or in full Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight

Signed by: Austria-Hungary, Bavaria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Great Britain (representing the British Empire), Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, the North German Confederation (i.e., Greater Prussia), Russia, Sweden and Norway, Switzerland, the Ottoman Empire, and Württemberg.

Wonder how many of those countries are following that treaty.

Time for those treaties to get swept into the dustbin of history.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

Regards

Please rate this comment: 0  0

Sorry to take so long to get back to you. I don’t think you got my drift.

I believe that the basic infantry weapon should be a weapon/cartridge system that allows the rifleman to effectively engage his target at the greatest range possible using a shoulder mounted weapon that is light enough to carry for extended periods of time with an adequate ammo load. The M1 carbine was popular with field officers in WWII, until they got into combat. Then the underpowered cartridge and the reduced range and stopping power it exhibited found this weapon abandoned, in field, for the Garand.

In terms of rendering an opponent harmless, the larger, heavier caliber is more effective. And it has a significantly greater range. The assault rifle was designed, by the Germans during WWII, to utilize a sub-powered rifle cartridge to engage targets at ranges signifcantly shorter than those available to the full sized battle rifle. It was an attempt to exceed the semi-auto Garand [representing a more controllable BAR] as well as replace the Erma submachine gun.

Now I enjoy firing the 5.56mm. It is easy on the ears and the shoulder for extended firing. Its drawbacks are reduced effective range and wounding capability. That being said, it is effective against unarmored troops within 200 yards, though it usually requires more hits to put down an opponent than the 7.62 NATO. In terms of effectiveness, within and beyond that distance the 7.62 is clearly superior. Automatic fire has traditionally been discouraged in the infantry as it is tremendously wasteful of ammunition. That is the real reason for the three-round burst capability on the M16/M4, to stifle the tendancy of troops to hose down a target with an entire magazine. At ranges other than CQC, a controlled single or double tap can easily be employed against a single target, in the open, and then an assessment can be made as to the desirability of a follow-up shot. At close range, this changes and multiple shots become desirable irregardless of the weapon employed.

The M16 was introduced to the ground combat services during the McNamara ear when civilian authority decided that standardization was more important than effectiveness. Now these, relatively, less effective weapon systems are still with us because of money and politics. Entire combat doctrines have evolved around the weapon system, rather than evolving a weapon system to fit an effective combat doctrine.

The same can be said for the 9mm v 45cal debate. Bigger is better. But, given the amount of money and political capital that is invested in the current M16 weapon/cartridge system, it is unlikely that it will be changed very soon.

Please rate this comment: 0  0