Testing, testing...

[LR1955]

Some more details I have picked up:

The calibres were tested for penetration, terminal effects, accuracy, initial, retained and striking energy, wind drift, etc. and calculations were made for stowed kills, recoil impulse and various other metrics.

.224 calibre (5.56mm) had the greatest Probability of Incapacitation by “Stowed Kills” (due to the lighter single cartridge weight).

Larger calibre bullets inflict more target damage, and the increase in target damage is greater than the increase in system weight.

Larger calibres had superior post-barrier target effects, with .277 calibre (7.0mm) equalling .308 (7.62mm) against barriers by weight.

The calibre range between .257 (6.5mm) and .277 (7.0mm) is the optimum for overall target effects.

Tony et. al:

Does any of this surprise anyone? Sure doesn't surprise me. Wish ARDEC had contracted with me for the study. I would probably be a couple million richer and would not have had to shoot a single round of ammunition. Everything Tony reports has been documented or can be interpolated from scientifically proven data.

There is nothing new about gilding metal covering a steel, composite, or lead core bullet. There has been no significant improvement in bullet design since around 1920. There has been no significant improvement in powder since the 1950's. And no significant change for the better in rifle design since the 1950's. The technology is mature and unless someone comes up with a powder that can significantly increase speed while maintaining the same or lower pressures, you have what you have.

Now, some guys hate the 5.56 and have hated it blindly since it was devised. And they hated it more when it got selected to replace the 7.62 for the service rifle. Just remember that part of the reason why the 7.62 was retained was because of the same prejudice against anything other than .30 caliber. This crowd probably thought replacing the 30-06 was as destructive to mankind as the guys who thought that replacing a single shot 45-70 with a smaller cartridge would mean our defeat. Or the same who insisted on having a magazine block in a Springfield in order to keep guys from blasting without aiming. Or the same who thought a semi-automatic service rifle would mean our logistical system would break down due to ammo consumption.

Bottom line again. The testing has already been done and there really is no change in terms of ballistics and hasn't been for seventy or eighty years.

A guy still must hit the target and if nothing can be done to improve the powder or bullet design, then one turns to rifle and sighting system design. This is where you may be able to quantify any improvement that the ammunition can offer. I am amazed at how poorly the current crop of issued service carbines is in terms of ergonomics. And I believe a much better optical sighting system can be designed and made for issued carbines.

LR1955